301 CHRONICLESn(After a composite photograph by Nancy Burson, formednby feeding photographs of six men and six women, selectednat random, into a computer programmed to merge facialnfeatures)nHere on this page I am poured out like water,nchild of (times six) my father and my mother,nfruit of adulterated seed, blurred daughter,nborn unregenerate—^your long-dreamed lover.nProphet and ghost and cipher, I was madenmost digitally: my parents put their headsntogether: input, output, I was laid,nclean printout from their cold objective beds.nNo vague hermaphrodite, I wrench your breath,nrally those old misshapen, desperate dreamsnyou thought you’d shed. New snakeskin (sweet falsendeath!),nthey grow back stronger, garment without seams.nCharismatic, mine is a tongue not human;nlike smoke or an ill-healed scar, my smudge of hair.nI wear few shadows—yet am wholly woman.nDoes that astonish you? Look if you dare.nYou who gaze in a mirror and grow blind.nSatan, Adam, Eve in her new-fleshed power;nI am more than kin, my dear, and less than kind—nand what you would give to have me for an hour!ndifferences on key measures of health and welfare, parhcularlynas these diflFerences are affected by nuclear expendituresnand other military spending.nIt is the oft-repeated presumption of IPPNW that medicalnpersonnel have a unique charge to raise the banner ofnantinuclearism because doctors have made the preservationnof life their essential task. The assumption by IPPNW thatnpreventing disease in the first place is infinitely preferable tontreating disease rests on a still further metaphysical premisenthat every illness can be prevented by foreknowledge; whichnin turn would make life eternal and death infinitelynpostponable. But these sets of assumptions, however worthnexploring in their own right, are rather beside the point.nDoctors no more or less than any other professionalngroup in modern society are charged with the prevention ofntotal destruction. It is no less a charge for lawyers, physicists,nor economists (indeed, some other professions havendeveloped their own rationale for pacifism and functionalnisolahon). The moral prerequisites of a profession arenoperationally limited to the maximum functioning of thatnprofession for the general good. But this does not mean thatnthe general good is uniquely the charge of a single profession.nAnd herein lies the central flaw in IPPNW reasoning:nits notion that a concern for the general welfare magicallyntranslates into a particular strategy for the conduct of foreignnpolicy. The participation of a select group of physicians innpublic discourse on the inadvisability of nuclear conflict hasnno more special weight, and a lot less special knowledge.nFEMINIST ANDROGYNE:nTHE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COMEnby Jane Greernnn”Androgyny” © 1982 Nancy Burson with Richard Carlingnand David Kramlich.nthan the same sort of public discourse undertaken bynphysicists. Indeed, in the postwar antinuclearism of thenI950’s, it was precisely the physicists who made specialnclaims of possessing policy knowledge. These earlier professionalsnserved to split rather than unite the scientificncommunity around the nuclear weapons issue. That thensame outcome awaits the present efforts to medicalize thennuclear issue seems a foregone conclusion—even more sonsince the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.nIt is a measure of the intellectual carelessness of keynfigures in the IPPNW that they not only insist upon thenpropriety of the award being shared by a Soviet counterpart,nbut go so far as to claim that such an act has the implicitnsanction of Andrei Sakharov himself Dr. Loring ConantnJr., one of the key American figures in the IPPNW, notednthat “our cooperation with the Soviets through the IPPNWndoes not imply that we condone their policies on dissidentsnor human rights abuses.” But he further suggested that evennSakharov shares the view that “the human rights issue has tonbe put into a larger context.” Dr. Conant went on to quotenfrom Sakharov’s statement (of 1975, not 1980 as he claims)nto the effect that: “Despite all that has happened I feel thatnthe question of war and peace and disarmament are soncrucial, they must be given absolute priority even in thenmost difficult circumstances.” What Sakharov said immediatelynafter that sentence is conveniently omitted by Conant.nAnd since Conant himself is attempting to enlist the formernNobel Laureate to his position, it seems fitting to given